State must allot alternate industrial sites to displaced migrants without charging premiums or retrospective rentals.

The petitioner, a registered small-scale industrial unit owned by a Kashmiri Pandit, was originally allotted Shed No. 5 at the Bagh-i-Ali Mardan Khan Industrial Area, Srinagar

Following the mass migration of Kashmiri Pandits in 1989, the proprietor migrated to Jammu for safety, abandoning the unit

In 1991, the unit suffered fire damage

Subsequently, the state re-allotted Shed No. 5 to Respondent No. 6

In a previous round of litigation (OWP No. 488/1996), the High Court directed the state to either provide a similar shed or restore Shed No. 5 to the petitioner

The state offered two sheds at Rangret but imposed new premium payments and significantly higher rent

While a contempt petition was pending regarding these conditions, the state issued an order on 06.04.2004 cancelling the allotment at Rangret, citing the petitioner's failure to complete formalities and pay rentals

The petitioner challenged this cancellation and sought restoration of the original shed

The court applied the fundamental principles of Natural Justice, emphasizing that administrative actions must be fair and take into account the contextual reality of the parties involved

It further invoked the doctrine of State Responsibility, asserting that the state and its instrumentalities have a solemn obligation to act as a "protector" rather than a "predator" of the property of citizens forced into migration by external threats to life and limb

The court observed that the state authorities effectively "played upon the misery" of the petitioner by treating his forced absence as a basis for re-allotting his property to a third party

The court found that the state failed in its duty to preserve the petitioner’s leasehold interest during the turmoil in Kashmir

By demanding premiums and higher rent for the alternate sheds at Rangret, the state unfairly treated an existing allottee as a "new allottee," which the court characterized as a "mirage" of compliance

The court determined that the cancellation order was a violation of natural justice, as it was unreasonable to expect the petitioner to restore industrial activity while the security of his community remained compromised

The court concluded that the state’s actions were "unfair and inequitable," requiring judicial intervention to restore justice while balancing the equities of the elapsed time

The court directed the official respondents to allot two sheds at the Industrial Estate, Rangret, to the petitioner

(a) if the previously identified sheds are unavailable, new ones must be provided; (b) the state shall not charge any premium for this allotment; and (c) rent shall be charged at the prevalent rate prospectively from the date the petitioner takes possession, without insisting on any past arrears

The court explicitly noted that the state's conduct was predatory and required the restoration of the petitioner's rights through adjusted equities